Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Kalou's allegedly off to Schalke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Warra dafty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9295242/Eden-Hazard-to-join-Chelsea-in-35-million-deal.html Chelsea will pay a fee of around €40 million (£35.3 million) to Lille, with Hazard having demanded wages of £4.6 million a year net of tax, so around £9 million a year for his new employer. That averages out at £170,000 a week. In addition his agent, John Bico, who has conducted an aggressive auction has made it clear that he wants a fee of £6 million. If all the demands are met and with Hazard expected to agree a five-year deal, it means the overall cost of the signing, fees and contract will amount to around £78 million which, even by Chelsea standards, is a substantial investment. Chelsea hijacked City’s deal after receiving a call from Bico on the eve of the Champions League final with the agent telling them that he could persuade Hazard to join them if his demands were met. Farcical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article851158.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Eden+Hazard+in+Chelsea+colours Looks like someone put the bighead cheat on Goldeneye multiplayer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's pretty depressing after the brilliant season we've had and putting together a reasonably competitive side on a budget to then have this lot go and spend another £100 million on whoever they fancy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article851158.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Eden+Hazard+in+Chelsea+colours He's a real life version of Sports Heads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's pretty depressing after the brilliant season we've had and putting together a reasonably competitive side on a budget to then have this lot go and spend another £100 million on whoever they fancy. That's why I wanted Spurs out of the CL. If Chelsea hadn't won it there's a chance they'd have spent even more. It's a fucking joke tbh. They started all this shit, to this degree anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Bobby called it: "This man will ruin our game." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Chelsea statement to Associated Press: "As with all transfers, when we have something to announce we will announce it in the usual way." ooo er. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steggy Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Who do you think is worse with shit like this? My mate whos a chelsea dickhead is giving 'oooh well i'd love to know your views on city' when i had a pop at him. chelsea or city? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Locked "Other clubs' transfers" Today at 11:21:33 PM Neil Can't get the staff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 He's taking his heel turn very seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Who do you think is worse with shit like this? My mate whos a chelsea dickhead is giving 'oooh well i'd love to know your views on city' when i had a pop at him. chelsea or city? Chelsea paved the way, City merely followed it. Both as bad as each other though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 At the moment Chelsea are worse, because they've been doing this for nearly a decade while claiming they'll become self-sufficient. Man City have made similar claims which are largely based around building those amazing training and youth facilities, so we'll see but it's probably a bit doubtful. Chelsea did build from a better starting point but it can't be said that they'd had an elongated period of success and achievement before the Russian arrived. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Who do you think is worse with shit like this? My mate whos a chelsea dickhead is giving 'oooh well i'd love to know your views on city' when i had a pop at him. chelsea or city? They're no better or worse than each other. They're both the Devil incarnate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's like aids or aids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 At the moment Chelsea are worse, because they've been doing this for nearly a decade while claiming they'll become self-sufficient. Man City have made similar claims which are largely based around building those amazing training and youth facilities, so we'll see but it's probably a bit doubtful. Chelsea did build from a better starting point but it can't be said that they'd had an elongated period of success and achievement before the Russian arrived. Chelsea's youth development system has been a joke as well. They've spent a canny bit of money on poaching kids from quite a young age and they've reaped no rewards whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Seeing as we are discussing they effect of City and Chelsea in a sense ruining what football was i stumbled accross on another forum I've always pitied Chelsea since their takeover, as opposed to harbouring hate towards them. It's precisely that which allows me to prod around in some of my brothers clothing. I always viewed them as a small likeable club, sort of like our smaller brother. Whilst, we were the cavalier attackers winning major trophies, they were a similar attacking side winning smaller trophies. Since Abramovic's arrival, I pitied them as their fans, no matter how much they would later gloat, were never going to taste real success. It was all akin to a Football Manager edit, where they added a couple of zeroes to their balance prior to starting the game. They were never going to taste hard earned success like some other fan bases had. Despite, comforting myself through this rationale, the reality was that nobody really gave a **** at the end of the day. We all knew that Chelsea needed 1 billion pounds worth of spending to achieve this triumph, but when all was said and done, their name is now on the CL trophy. The fallacy of my thinking was made apparent when one realised that nearly every club had achieved success via external financial help. AC Milan are the last club to have retained the European Cup, yet where would they be without Berlusconi who financed the signings of Gullit, Van Basten, Desailly, Savicevic and co. What's the difference between Berlusconi and Abramovic? Nothing. Who recalls that Milan bought their success? No-one. Similarly, Real Madrid's initial European successes was powered by the state, and whilst, many people are aware of this fact, the club remains as the biggest club in world football, and the most successful. The car company Fiat is the single biggest reason why Juventus is the most successful club in Italian history. Our very own Arsenal had a dodgy backer in the early parts of the century, a businessman, yes a businessman, who helped finance our dealings. What's the difference between all of the above support and that of Abrsmovic's? Nothing. Blackburn Rovers only recently won the PL, or bought it depending on how you want to look at it, via the support and backing of Jack Walker. Why was there not an uproar then? The reality is that Chelsea merely did it on a grander scale, and very close to home, which is why it has been scrutinised so completely. The truth is that every club, since football entered the big time, has bought success in one form or another. I always foolishly tried to attach morality and fair play to football, and my whole way of thinking was influenced by this. Now, I realise how ridiculous I was. Football is big business, just like any other, and you need to be a shark to survive in this game. If corruption and unfair external help was rife a century ago, why is it going to be any different now? Why should we expect anything different? We've been fed a great story about doing things the right way, the Arsenal way, and whilst it all sounds nice and cosy, its just not very realistic. Looks like its from an Arsenal fan, anyone agree with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 re chelsea spending spree and FFP. I'm sure I read a while back (world soccer or WSC maybe) that platini is waiting till he takes over from blatter (who doesn't want it, likes things the way they are the twat) to really enforce FFP. fingers crossed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 At the moment Chelsea are worse, because they've been doing this for nearly a decade while claiming they'll become self-sufficient. Man City have made similar claims which are largely based around building those amazing training and youth facilities, so we'll see but it's probably a bit doubtful. Chelsea did build from a better starting point but it can't be said that they'd had an elongated period of success and achievement before the Russian arrived. Chelsea's youth development system has been a joke as well. They've spent a canny bit of money on poaching kids from quite a young age and they've reaped no rewards whatsoever. Also I remember when they reigned their spending on the first team in a bit then they stopped winning things so they just went proper apeshit again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 At the moment Chelsea are worse, because they've been doing this for nearly a decade while claiming they'll become self-sufficient. Man City have made similar claims which are largely based around building those amazing training and youth facilities, so we'll see but it's probably a bit doubtful. Chelsea did build from a better starting point but it can't be said that they'd had an elongated period of success and achievement before the Russian arrived. Chelsea are ran in the most ridiculously hap-hazard (nee pun) way too, but get away with because they have unlimited cash. Look at somebody like Bosingwa for example. Cost them £17 million, very average player considering the fee. Now he's going on a free and now they're just going to go out and spend the same again on a new one. £75 million Torres and Luiz FFS. I wonder who is really behind their transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 re chelsea spending spree and FFP. I'm sure I read a while back (world soccer or WSC maybe) that platini is waiting till he takes over from blatter (who doesn't want it, likes things the way they are the twat) to really enforce FFP. fingers crossed. Genuinely think you're clutching at straws mate. When all is said and done the clubs will call the shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Yep. Chelsea - Highest transfer fees paid Name From Fee Date 1 Fernando Torres Liverpool £50M 2011 2 Andriy Shevchenko Milan £30.8M 2006 3 Michael Essien Lyon £24.5M 2005 4 Didier Drogba Marseille £24M 2004 5 Juan Mata Valencia £23.5M 2011 6 David Luiz Benfica £21M 2011 7 Shaun Wright-Phillips Manchester City £21M 2005 8 Romelu Lukaku Anderlecht £20M 2011 9 Ricardo Carvalho Porto £20M 2004 10 Ramires Benfica £18M 2010 Compared to Man City btw: Name From Fee Date 1 Sergio Agüero Atlético Madrid £35M 2011 2 Robinho Real Madrid £32.5M[5] 2008 3 Edin Džeko Wolfsburg £27M 2011 4 Carlos Tévez Media Sports Investments £25.5M 2009 5 Samir Nasri Arsenal £25M 2011 6 Emmanuel Adebayor Arsenal £25M 2009 7 Mario Balotelli Internazionale £24M 2010 8 David Silva Valencia £24M 2010 9 Yaya Touré Barcelona £24M[6] 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 What a pair of complete pricks Hazard and his agent are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 £21m for SWP. Mind, some of City's early dealings were as bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts